Provenance: publisher-asserted, not independently verified
The publisher identifies these figures as real. The supplied guide explicitly labels pages 85–92 fictional, with invented data and quotations. We retain the numbers and analyse their arithmetic, but the underlying records have not been supplied to reconcile that conflict. These are not verified results from this site, its archive or its adviser; the guide’s fictional labels remain part of their provenance. No sample testimonials are reproduced as real endorsements.
Guide page 85 · Document-labelled fictional / publisher-asserted real
Homepage promises
4.0% → 5.8%
40/1,000 versus 58/1,000 eligible visitors confirmed subscriptions. Change: +1.8 percentage points; +45% relative.
The approximate difference interval spans zero. More observed signups are not a proven lift; assignment and repeated monitoring matter.
Observation window: Not specified in the guide.
Inspect the original case and labels ↗Guide page 86 · Document-labelled fictional / publisher-asserted real
Acquisition versus useful action
More signups. Less first use.
Each offer: 1,500 visitors. Editorial sample: 90 signups, 36 first-use actions. Worksheet: 120 signups, 30 actions. Visitor-to-use rates: 2.4% versus 2.0%; subscriber-to-use rates: 40% versus 25%.
The stronger signup rate does not automatically create the stronger reader relationship. Offline use may not be observed.
Observation window: Same period; duration not specified.
Inspect the original case and labels ↗Guide page 87 · Document-labelled fictional / publisher-asserted real
Paid proposal clinic
$570 contribution
18 places × $75 = $1,350 gross. $300 cash costs + 12 staff hours × $40 = $780 included costs. 16 attended, 12 submitted a revision, 8 replied later and 5 of those 8 reported applying it.
Contribution excludes overhead, tax and omitted costs. Five of eight respondents is not the application rate for all attendees; no sales close-rate outcome was measured.
Observation window: One clinic; later feedback timing not specified.
Inspect the original case and labels ↗Guide page 88 · Document-labelled fictional / publisher-asserted real
Assisted editorial production
25 minutes saved—not 55
12 assignments: 6 standard, 6 assisted. Initial production: 210 versus 155 minutes. Verification/final editing: 35 versus 65. Total: 245 versus 220 minutes, about 10.2% less.
Account for the whole workflow. The guide assumes all assignments meet the quality standard; these averages do not establish failure rates or long-run savings.
Observation window: 12-assignment pilot; calendar duration not specified.
Inspect the original case and labels ↗Guide page 89 · Document-labelled fictional / publisher-asserted real
Sponsorship economics
−$100 after staff cost
$1,000 sponsorship revenue − $600 external costs − 10 staff hours × $50 = −$100 contribution. Cash-only accounting would show +$400. 20 tracked destination visits; purchases unavailable.
Do not mistake cash surplus for sustainable contribution. Without an exposure denominator, neither click-through rate nor conversion can be calculated.
Observation window: One campaign; duration not specified.
Inspect the original case and labels ↗Guide page 90 · Document-labelled fictional / publisher-asserted real
Archive usability
18 usable out of 30
30 prominence-selected resources: 18 verified usable, 8 historical records without usable assets, 4 uncertain. Usable share of this selected set: 60%.
This is not a random archive sample. Do not extrapolate 60% to the site’s 208 resources or classify uncertain captures as failures.
Observation window: Audit timing and duration not specified.
Inspect the original case and labels ↗Guide page 91 · Document-labelled fictional / publisher-asserted real
Reader re-engagement
60 returns · 45 opt-outs
1,000 apparently inactive subscribers contacted. 60 performed a return action within 14 days (6%); 45 unsubscribed (4.5%).
Without an untreated group, 60 returns are not 60 incremental returns. Recorded inactivity may misclassify active readers.
Observation window: 14 days for return action; a separate opt-out window is not stated.
Inspect the original case and labels ↗Guide page 92 · Document-labelled fictional / publisher-asserted real
Adviser quality evaluation
80% passed. Three severe failures.
40 constructed tasks: 32 pass, 8 fail. Three failures severe: an invented client fact, an unjustified scope recommendation and an unsupported evidence claim. Severe failures: 7.5% of all tasks.
Average pass rate can hide unacceptable harm. Constructed tasks do not establish real-use performance; no numerical retest result is supplied.
Observation window: Evaluation dates and duration not specified.
Inspect the original case and labels ↗